Was Owen too stoic

Upon re watching clips of Jurassic World, I think that, especially for his actor, Owen seemed very cold of a character. At least with Alan Grant, Sam Neil injected a bit of sarcasm and wit into his performance. Maybe they told Chris Pratt not to steal the show and crack jokes 24/7. Maybe Owen could've had a tighter bromance with Barry or a better relationship with the raptors where he jokingly talk about them like they're his daughters.

I didn't like Owen's character, I felt he was charismatic and actually loved to joke about things like when he did with Claire, but I felt he was like that type of badass "hero" that knows everything and does moralist talks in an annoying way.

While Malcolm did the same, he was never annoying being a moralist character.

I don't know, I felt Owen's character lacked depth and was off.

_______________"Chaos theory is a pseudoscience you asshole" - Headcanon line from Sickle_Claw

Former JPL member, Spinosaur4.4.

GuestGuest

Subject: Re: Was Owen too stoic Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:15 pm

He was just generic action man, nothing particularly worth criticizing but not praising either. I had many problems with the film and he was one of the least problematic aspects of it.

The strange thing about how people perceive Owen as a character is that there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus. A lot of people say that Chris Pratt was just playing Star-Lord as a Raptor trainer, and others were disappointed that he wasn't "funny enough" compared to his previous roles. I think Owen should be less of a comedic bloke than Star-Lord, and should show more of a toughness in tight situations and played up his connection with the dinosaurs more. I don't know if he's "cold" necessarily, but there isn't enough of a character there.

Honestly, I think we're lucky that Pratt is as well-liked, charismatic and humourous because if it had gone to say a Jai Courtney or Sam Worthington sort of actor, the film would have suffered for it.

Honestly, I think we're lucky that Pratt is as well-liked, charismatic and humourous because if it had gone to say a Jai Courtney or Sam Worthington sort of actor, the film would have suffered for it.

That's true. The problem imo was more with the character than with the actor. Owen is a very interesting character especially because of his relationship with the Raptors, but I feel like this potential wasn't used as much as it should have been. Well, there's still JW2 so maybe his role will be bigger there, enough to give it a much more deep characterization.

_______________Jurassic World exists to remind us how very small we are, how new. You can't put a price on that

The only way how Universal will do that is if it's the way how Dinobot from Beast Wars went out...Like an f***ing badass!

EXACTLY! While there's no guarantee if Universal would even consider killing him, one still hopes that the writers would give him a hero's end. If Malcolm and Grant do not return, then it seems logical that after THREE scrapes with dinosaurs, Owen would be pretty lucky to get that far to start off with.

I would be okay with him dying. But of course it won't happen. They won't kill the main characters.

I'm okay with him alive too.

_______________"Chaos theory is a pseudoscience you asshole" - Headcanon line from Sickle_Claw

Former JPL member, Spinosaur4.4.

GuestGuest

Subject: Re: Was Owen too stoic Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:04 pm

Heroic deaths are overdone. Quick, sudden deaths have more impact, especially for main character... just as long as it seems genuinely executed, there's motivation for it, and it's not done purely for shock value (like lots of deaths in something like GoT seem to be as of late). If you can't meet those terms, then either have that heroic death or not at all and let the character just live.

Maybe his own raptors finally slaughter him, that would end the arc rather poetically. They're still animals, tricks and trust mean nothing in the end. Or perhaps if Owen was shot to death by someone (rotten government?), rather than killed by dinosaur, you could open loads of possibilities with where it goes from there. Nobody would see that coming, not really.

But since I wish the trained raptor nonsense and park/island setting never to return I hope for the latter, even if it's unrealistic they do anything bold with him at all. Generic action men usually stay as generic action men.

Heroic deaths are overdone. Quick, sudden deaths have more impact, especially for main character... just as long as it seems genuinely executed, there's motivation for it, and it's not done purely for shock value (like lots of deaths in something like GoT seem to be as of late). If you can't meet those terms, then either have that heroic death or not at all and let the character just live.

Maybe his own raptors finally slaughter him, that would end the arc rather poetically. They're still animals, tricks and trust mean nothing in the end. Or perhaps if Owen was shot to death by someone (rotten government?), rather than killed by dinosaur, you could open loads of possibilities with where it goes from there. Nobody would see that coming, not really.

But since I wish the trained raptor nonsense and park/island setting never to return I hope for the latter, even if it's unrealistic they do anything bold with him at all. Generic action men usually stay as generic action men.

But the problem with that is only Blue is left and do we really that to happen? Not only that, but with all the negativity that the news constantly shows (which is the real reason why their ratings have been imploding), don't we need a hero on the big screen?

No offense, but I can't tell if you're either so cynical about wanting something new that you've confused 'playing safe' for following norms and tradition, or if you actually do, but that you just don't care and want to be bold for the sake of it, even if it means crewing over the fans. Which, if that is the case, then with all due respect, you're being selfish as hell.

I can list a lot of times that movies studios were, in your words 'bold' and failed. The killing of most of the G1 Transformers-especially Optimus Prime-and replacing them with new ones, The killing of the T. rex by Spinosaurus, how X-Mex 3 undid a lot that Brian Singer did in his last 2 movies. (The fact that X3 was mostly retconned out of existence by the new X-Men trilogy shows how badly X3 has been received since its release.) And need I mention how Amy Pascal basically took away the GB3 plans that the fans have wanted and made a reboot that few wanted with the help of the emo king, Paul Feig?

Not only that, but I'm also beginning to think that you've confused be bold and daring with being dumb and reckless. A bold and daring move is something that you get a lot of good back if it succeeds as long as you are still faithful to what you are working at. Dumb and reckless was all those examples that I mentioned. I'm not trying to sound mean or snarky, but I am just amazed by your sheer lack of respect towards tradition and norms for the sake of something 'bold' and 'different'.

No offense, but I can't tell if you're either so cynical about wanting something new that you've confused 'playing safe' for following norms and tradition, or if you actually do, but that you just don't care and want to be bold for the sake of it,

Quote :

then with all due respect, you're being selfish as hell.

Quote :

I'm also beginning to think that you've confused be bold and daring with being dumb and reckless.

Quote :

I'm not trying to sound mean or snarky, but I am just amazed by your sheer lack of respect towards tradition and norms for the sake of something 'bold' and 'different'.

I don't want to reply to such offensive post, even if you attempted camouflaging it. Whatever my opinions might be at least I've not ridiculed others for theirs.

I don't want to reply to such offensive post, even if you attempted camouflaging it. Whatever my opinions might be at least I've not ridiculed others for theirs.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. You can argue that I was a bit blunt and hard charging. And I see why people can believe that. All I'm saying is that you seems to want things to be different for the sake of it, but without caring what others think or without caring about traditions and norms. You complain about seemingly everything being safe, yet at the same time you rarely go into great detail about what you want different, let alone consider the fact that the majority of people don't want the radical change that you want. The last time the franchise did that was that one infamous scene in JP3, and even then you admitted it was a failure.

I wasn't camouflaging anything. If anything else, you are taking what I said out of context.

Last edited by Rhedosaurus on Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

I would like him being killed by his own raptors, it would be just as iconic as Wu dying by his own creations.

That would mean that you can't control nature, and even if Owen knew that, being killed by the raptors he trusted meant he tasted his own moral medicine. "You can't control nature" is something he would likely say to a scientist if he got the chance, meanwhile he is the "cool badass guy that is buddy buddy with raptors". He dances with death too all the time too.

Okay, maybe I'm being too little crazy here, it's just that I don't like the concept with a human being buddy buddy with raptors.

_______________"Chaos theory is a pseudoscience you asshole" - Headcanon line from Sickle_Claw

I would like him being killed by his own raptors, it would be just as iconic as Wu dying by his own creations.

That would mean that you can't control nature, and even if Owen knew that, being killed by the raptors he trusted meant he tasted his own moral medicine. "You can't control nature" is something he would likely say to a scientist if he got the chance, meanwhile he is the "cool badass guy that is buddy buddy with raptors". He dances with death too all the time too.

Okay, maybe I'm being too little crazy here, it's just that I don't like the concept with a human being buddy buddy with raptors.

To be fair, while a lot of people don't like to see Owen whacked by Blue, it's safe to say that probably don't like the whole 'raptor whisperer' thing either. I got used to it since they were careful enough, but I can see why you and others don't like it.

I don't want to reply to such offensive post, even if you attempted camouflaging it. Whatever my opinions might be at least I've not ridiculed others for theirs.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. You can argue that I was a bit blunt and hard charging. And I see why people can believe that. All I'm saying is that you seems to want things to be different for the sake of it, but without caring what others think or without caring about traditions and norms. You complain about seemingly everything being safe, yet at the same time you rarely go into great detail about what you want different, let alone consider the fact that the majority of people don't want the radical change that you want. The last time the franchise did that was that one infamous scene in JP3, and even then you admitted it was a failure.

I wasn't camouflaging anything. If anything else, you are taking what I said out of context.

You are doing nothing of the sort, what are you talking about? You self categorize me in either having opinion A where I'm supposedly confused, or having opinion B where I'm supposedly 'selfish' and having no respect for others. Without nothing else between, in two instances. I've never offended you for your opinions so I frankly don't understand this attitude. You may ignore my posts if you wish but don't come about shouting accusations. Please

These are my opinions, why does it make me selfish if they apparently differ of that of the masses? Why am I not allowed to discuss, to what my mind, would be what I want to see? Why do I have to care about the 'norms'? What do traditions mean and why are they important? Do I have some sort of duty towards them? Am I in charge of these productions going forward? Am I the screenwriter?

Now, and as I've said before, of course the masses and to extent most of the fans want more or less the same they got before. That's the way sequels have been made for decades, it's the core premise of follow-up to be more or less the same with mild modifications. People like familiar things. They don't like things that are out of the comfort zone, at least not before they see them. There are exceptions to the rule of course but (IMO unfortunately) those kinds of sequels are far in between, for various reasons. There are also sequels that essentially follow the same exact formula but still feel individually different, with different ideas. But for the most part they are the same. Producers have done enough market research to know this and that the safe approach is, you know, the safest. There's a reason Jurassic World was made a soft reboot wish ton of obvious fanservice references. Because they knew it -generally- pleases both of those parties, masses and fans. The same familiar, accepted-as-good material from the Jurassic Park, done again 20 years later. The nostalgia factor is great with these people now in their 20's, 30's and 40's and reminiscing about the good old days of JP. TLW and JP3 were accepted relatively poorly and whatever little risks they took were not regarded as particularly working ones, so for JW they did absolutely nothing out of the comfort zone, just same old stuff. Except perhaps the trained raptor thing, but if you compare that to even the King Kong setting of TLW it's nothing.

What I've 'suggested', such as killing of Owen or whatever, they're just random examples, not what should actually be done. Merely examples of direction that could possibly be followed. And even if something like killing of main character was deemed possible (which with someone as generic as Owen wouldn't really be that bad of a thing in my books, but again that's me), that's just detail suggestion example, not whole course of the film. This thread is about Owen right? Is it wrong of me to talk about Owen in Owen thread, or Spino in the JP3-Goodthings thread, or music in the music threads? These are all little details yes, but these are specific threads about them yes?

I'm not a screenwriter. All I can say is that in the grand level of new Jurassic Park sequel execution they should (and should've already done so 20 years ago) get rid of not only both the park and island and escaping dinosaurs setting, but explore new ways of dealing with these animals. Topics we've never seen before, philosophical themes we've never seen. Make changes to the story arc formula. And most of all bring dinosaurs to the 21st century without destroying the canon. So in the end it's not really about "Jurassic Park" or "Jurassic World", those things are just what happened in the past and we have have as backdrop to have environment to follow-up on: now we are dissecting whole new universe or so to speak. Now seeing as JP5 seems to be more or less just continuation to JW with same faces and shooting locations, it's unlikely for something drastic to happen (and add into that what I talked in the previous paragraph), but I guess I can always hope? Even for little changes if not major? And talk about it here. This is a discussion, speculative forum isn't it? Or do I have to start following some pre-determined ways of what can be said? Just because it's unlikely to happen, means it's something not to be discussed?

Now, whether or not the said taken risks actually work is not the point, the point is that some should be taken. Not for the 'sake of it', not for artificially trying to spice it up, and not for shock value, but for creating some new unseen ways for these films. Implement risks the right way, the natural way. and you get the right results. Some actual reason for the new films to exist (other than obviously for studios to make money). New, challenging sequel may not be what most want, but it should be something that was at least attempted. It may not work, but at least it was tried. For example, and this is going back to the Star Wars thread you seemingly started argumenting with me for the similar cause... as terrible as the Lucas prequels were in execution, as least they were mostly different films to the original trilogy. They tried new things. They weren't just reboots and rehash of the originals. Quality wise I rank them below both TFA and R1 because of that said absolutely horrendous execution (which probably doesn't need much explaining), but I still respect them more than the ultra-safeness of both the new Disney films, and seemingly the others in following line. TFA is arguably a complete remake of New Hope and R1 is just the same old stuff we've seen before, you know stuff from the original trilogy that masses and fans to see. Sure, there are lots of good individual elements and details in them that are very personal, and R1 has this whole depressing war theme going on we've haven't seen before in Star Wars, but overall there's no real imagination. Death Star, Darth Vader, Stormtroopers, AT-ATs, AT-STs, rebels, Leia, Tarkin, etc etc etc. Rebels fighting the Empire. Stuff that sells merc. That's why that film was made. Not because there was some story untold, not because it was needed.

And since I know you're probably gonna quote me on this negatively, I'm once again going to add, this is from my perspective, not from your average Joes. The other standalone SW stories and whatever, they're all circulating around known characters and original trilogy timeline for the same reason, brand recognition. Themes that are familiar, themes that most are gonna look forward to. Not weird stuff people like Lucas wanted to bring, but more of the same. More of the safe. But once you have that conveyor belt rolling them out in tight fashion for years and years, ultimately it's gonna lead to people getting so used to it that it's gonna start drying out. Box office expectations will start falling. Just like ratings with TV show that's on been air for too long and things have gotten pretty stale and samey. And when that happens, whenever it may be, they will put the franchise to hiatus and reboot it later. Or possibly sell it to some other company.

If you still don't understand what I'm talking about, I'm afraid further discussion about this isn't doing any good.

I don't want to reply to such offensive post, even if you attempted camouflaging it. Whatever my opinions might be at least I've not ridiculed others for theirs.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. You can argue that I was a bit blunt and hard charging. And I see why people can believe that. All I'm saying is that you seems to want things to be different for the sake of it, but without caring what others think or without caring about traditions and norms. You complain about seemingly everything being safe, yet at the same time you rarely go into great detail about what you want different, let alone consider the fact that the majority of people don't want the radical change that you want. The last time the franchise did that was that one infamous scene in JP3, and even then you admitted it was a failure.

I wasn't camouflaging anything. If anything else, you are taking what I said out of context.

You are doing nothing of the sort, what are you talking about? You self categorize me in either having opinion A where I'm supposedly confused, or having opinion B where I'm supposedly 'selfish' and having no respect for others. Without nothing else between, in two instances. I've never offended you for your opinions so I frankly don't understand this attitude. You may ignore my posts if you wish but don't come about shouting accusations. Please

These are my opinions, why does it make me selfish if they apparently differ of that of the masses? Why am I not allowed to discuss, to what my mind, would be what I want to see? Why do I have to care about the 'norms'? What do traditions mean and why are they important? Do I have some sort of duty towards them? Am I in charge of these productions going forward? Am I the screenwriter?

Now, whether or not the said taken risks actually work is not the point, the point is that some should be taken. Not for the 'sake of it', not for artificially trying to spice it up, and not for shock value, but for creating some new unseen ways for these films. Implement risks the right way, the natural way. and you get the right results. Some actual reason for the new films to exist (other than obviously for studios to make money). New, challenging sequel may not be what most want, but it should be something that was at least attempted. It may not work, but at least it was tried. For example, and this is going back to the Star Wars thread you seemingly started argumenting with me for the similar cause... as terrible as the Lucas prequels were in execution, as least they were mostly different films to the original trilogy. They tried new things. They weren't just reboots and rehash of the originals. Quality wise I rank them below both TFA and R1 because of that said absolutely horrendous execution (which probably doesn't need much explaining), but I still respect them more than the ultra-safeness of both the new Disney films, and seemingly the others in following line. TFA is arguably a complete remake of New Hope and R1 is just the same old stuff we've seen before, you know stuff from the original trilogy that masses and fans to see. Sure, there are lots of good individual elements and details in them that are very personal, and R1 has this whole depressing war theme going on we've haven't seen before in Star Wars, but overall there's no real imagination. Death Star, Darth Vader, Stormtroopers, AT-ATs, AT-STs, rebels, Leia, Tarkin, etc etc etc. Rebels fighting the Empire. Stuff that sells merc. That's why that film was made. Not because there was some story untold, not because it was needed.

And since I know you're probably gonna quote me on this negatively, I'm once again going to add, this is from my perspective, not from your average Joes. The other standalone SW stories and whatever, they're all circulating around known characters and original trilogy timeline for the same reason, brand recognition. Themes that are familiar, themes that most are gonna look forward to. Not weird stuff people like Lucas wanted to bring, but more of the same. More of the safe. But once you have that conveyor belt rolling them out in tight fashion for years and years, ultimately it's gonna lead to people getting so used to it that it's gonna start drying out. Box office expectations will start falling. Just like ratings with TV show that's on been air for too long and things have gotten pretty stale and samey. And when that happens, whenever it may be, they will put the franchise to hiatus and reboot it later. Or possibly sell it to some other company.

If you still don't understand what I'm talking about, I'm afraid further discussion about this isn't doing any good.

To be fair, how else can I see you, when you have done nothing but come across as such? I'm not saying you don't have a right to your opinion, but from what I've been reading, with all due respect, it just feels like you want something new and are willing to throw away much of what people like in the process. I'm not against 'new' per-se as long as it's a calculated risk that is has a good chance to succeed or if the movie if good enough where it can survive that risk failing. What I am against is that how many in Hollywood changes things for the sake of it, or does it and implements it in a botched way via my list my last posts before.

Not only that, but keep something in mind. Between how Spinosaurus in JP3 was shoved down our throats and those 'homocraptors' that were thought about in a script for JP4, fans are very dubious of change. I'm not against some change in the next 2 JP/JW movie: my feathered dinosaurs thread, lips on future T. rexes, Triassic dinosaurs, but I and a lot of others here don't want radical change. It's because the bigger and bolder the change or something new is, the more likely one is to destroy something. Look at how Batman and Robin was radically different then the last 3 Batman movies before...and the damage it did afterwords. It actually scrapped any sequel that was going to be made. Not only that but the Star Wars prequels too. I like the prequels better then most. The first one I liked via the exploration angle with all the new cool wildlife. That being said, given how bad they were compared to the first and the recent 2, it's hard to blame the fans for wanting something more...familiar.

If you want something big and bold. More power to you. And I honestly mean that. Just keep this in mind. When something new and unfamiliar fails and fails big, it ain't the people's fault for rejecting, or at least being very dubious, when something else comes along that's also big and bold.

GuestGuest

Subject: Re: Was Owen too stoic Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:02 pm

Did you read all of what I wrote? There's nothing really new for me to add here that wasn't answered already, we're both in limbo of repetition.

And yes Batman & Robin came out to be because the producers for some reason wanted to recreate campy 1960's Batman out of a blue, because I guess they thought that was what was hip now? And Joel Schumacher is the kind of flamboyant weirdo that may just attempt that (you even see flashes of that direction in Batman Forever). But it's not like that film really wanted to have anything to do with the previous films anyway. It wasn't even really trying to be sequel. I don't know what the hell it was.

As I said, it doesn't always work, there's no guarantee of anything. It may be a disaster and end up on "worst films ever made" (not that cherry picking titles from there really proves anything in this discussion). Aliens could have been a disaster without James Cameron. Indeed, I generally rather take garbage of a sequel that tried, than generic ultra-safe cash cow, particularly these modern reboots. I rather have Jurassic Park 5 (or 6) as complete crap which attempted something new that could have potentially worked under right execution, than same old park-island-dino-escape recycling that I forget two hours after seeing it. Disasters can lead to franchise hiatus or termination, but if that's the price of it, I pay it. If it cannot provide anything really new, perhaps it deserves stop and we will have what we had so far. But once again, that is me, not you and most others.

However, I think if JP5 is more like TLW where they "sort of tried" I will be somewhat okay with it. Not pleased, but not annoyed like with JW and these new Disney Star Wars thingies.